Global Economic Security - Example

Global Economic Security Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Instructor Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date The Post Cold War era refers to the new age which evolved in the 1980s and 1990s when there was the inauguration of a new age of international relations after the Barlin Wall fell and the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is the era when the term global replaced the term international. However, it is a matter of fact that, the power relations between nations have continued to be vital to the world affair. Even after the end of the cold war, the relations and ties between nations have never been permanent (Held & McGrew 2002). In actual facts, the breakdown of the state control in the communist regions ended up to new civil and ethnic conflicts and thus the global economy is ever threatened. It is a point worth noting that, growing economic globalization in the post Cold War era still aligns itself in the ideologies of the North and South. This has been a handle which is hard to beat to ensure tremendous economic growth globally. Additionally, the collapse of the Soviet Union destroyed the bipolar system which resulted to power gaps in some regions which on the other hand result to struggles for influence (Goldfischer 2002). It is a point to note that, after the Cold War, states from the same block or which were former allies became competing rivals. For example, The EU and Japan rose as rival centers of power against the already established United States dominance. When these happens, in the long run there is competition of major powers on natural resources, mostly energy resources and this creates disputes about unfair trade practices and worries related to dependence on externally concentrate or otherwise monopolistic sources of good and services (Willetts 2011). Monopoly threatens the global economic security especially after the end of the cold war. If the control of the supply of certain goods and services happens to be controlled by the so called hostile hands, which additionally control the price of the same supply, the economic security of the receipt is under threat due to monopolistic aspects in the wrong hands (Held & McGrew 2002). This leads to the definition of the economic security which connotes that, this global competitiveness, the capacity to resist threats and invasions of the involved economy, and the domestic plus international environments which encourages economic growth and survival. Dominance is yet another aspect that incapacitates the global economic security. In other words, there is the presence of the strong and the weak states. The strong states in this case are those states which shape the rules and institutions which makes global economy possible. United States is one strong state which has and is still dominance in shaping these rules (Held & McGrew 2002). They at times use international coercion and all this is aligned to their national ideology and domestic power of the state. The reason why this is risky is due to the facts that, the weak state are left with no options in their international economic relations. Consequently, the weak nations have little and even sometimes no influence in the creation and enforcement of the rules and systems and they have exercise little control over their won integration on the word economy. This results to coercive liberalization rather than a democratic choice. This for example was experienced in 1990s when developing nations were coerced into an agreement to have billions transferred, of monopoly profits from poor countries to rich countries, disguising that they will protect the rights of investors (Goldfischer 2002). Additionally, dependence, which is a common case in pre cold war era, is a case which inhibits global economic security. This in other words is referred to as soft power which states that, instead of forcing other states into doing what one want, soft power gets others want what the dominant want. This leaves the weak states with no option than following whatever the dominant dictates. This incapacitates the growth of economic security for the weak nations for they cannot do anything without interference. The terms of trade which were enacted after the cold war favor industrialized product over raw materials. This means that, when the developing countries, who are late industrializes find the market already saturated with goods which in most cases are of higher quality than they can actually produce for export. This makes them result to external finance aimed at supporting modernizing investments (Held & McGrew 2002). This being the case, participating in such local global economy results to domestic pressures and governments eventually find themselves paying debts I the expense of lowering the living standards of its people. These nations have nothing to do for the dominant nations are the ones who have set the rules of the game. Less developed nations suffer economic insecurity as a result of their structural disadvantage in the world capitalist economy and they are left with nothing else than undermining the human security in order to support their domestic social political stability. This results to social unrest, civil disorder and crime and this in the long run incapacitates the development and the growth of global economic security (Goldfischer 2002). The global economic security is totally dependent on the energy security. When this is missing, international conflicts are inevitable over the strategic resource which in most cases is oil. It is a point to note that, the already developed world has the capability of causing such conflicts for instance, the Unites States always makes military plans to protect vital oil supplies which are connected to her economy and this in most cases may cause collisions with the involved states (Willetts 2011). Even after the cold war, multilateralism is yet to be realized. States and especially those which were opposing each other have not yet abandoned cold war mentality. This has resulted to the culmination of concepts which do not have trust, mutual benefit, equality and cooperation, which are not built on fair and collective security mechanisms which are aimed at preventing the recurrence of conflicts and enhancing world peace and security (Willetts 2011). This entire concepts act as stumbling blocks to the realization of the global economic security after the cold war era. The illicit flows which have proved difficult to tame and control and are also easier to disguise as legitimate economic transactions has increased in the post cold war era, incapacitating global economic security., terrorism, pollution economic shocks undermine economic security and increase inequality and threaten political stability. Illicit flow in this case goes hand in hand with security threats independent of their effect on economic security (Kiras 2011). In other words, when countermeasures are imposed against such threats impose cost on legitimate economic exchange and in the long run reduce the levels of trade and investments. In the presence of libelism, unequal distribution of relative gains between countries as now countries interact with one another in commerce is wanting. From the liberal platform, gains are unequally distributed among the actors, which is totally dependent on the relative size of the nation’s economy and its productive capacity (Held & McGrew 2002). This being the case, the industries had spill over effects through the economy which is cultivated by the international division of labor and other productive functions and this is directed in increasing the economic welfare of others. This is well illustrated in a trade between capital intensive country and labor intensive country. In this case, the favor is inclined to the small county, which otherwise gains at the expense of the other country’s economy. The new global production process has a lot to blame for it is not creating security concerns so much as the increased reliance of the other countries in the worlds economy. For instance, borrowing and example, from the 1970s oil crisis, the reliance state in regard to access to critical natural resources open more and advanced vulnerability. The U.S which is the world’s largest importer of goods and services makes it very sensitive to changing the policies of other nation’s states (Amitav 2001). This then translates to discouraging exporting companies who have moved their production process closer to their target market, incapacitating the growth of global economic security. There have been regional conflicts that threaten regional’s stability. They destroy human lives, social and physical infrastructure; incapacitate minorities (Goldfischer 2002). This on the other hand threatens the global economic security for trade and interrelations between nations are destroyed. Additionally, there are some governments especially from the developing nations which have proved to be corrupt, tremendously abuse power and lack responsibility. This makes many nations not to develop economically, letting them ever depend on donors and always making the live of its citizens unbearable. It is therefore, worth concluding that, even though there has been commendable steps made in the post cold war era in regard to economic development, there are many threats that are incapacitating the realization of the global economic security. This mostly is as a result of the stronger economies undermining the weaker ones, by making policies which are only to their favor. The political security in many nations has also remained a core threat to the global economy. In other words, regional conflicts have maimed the realization of the global economic security. References Amitav Acharya, (2001)“Clash of Civilizations? No, Of National Interests and Principles”, International Herald Tribune, 10 January 2001, p.8. Goldfischer, David (2002) ‘E.H. Carr: a historical realist approach for the globalisation era’, Review of International Studies, 28: 697-717. Held, David and McGrew, Anthony (2002) ‘Introduction’ in David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds) Governing Globalisation: Power, Authority and Global Governance, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 1-21. Kiras, J,. (2011). Terrorism and Globalization. In: Baylis, J et al., 5th ed. Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. New York:Oxford University Press, pp366-378. Willetts, P. (2011). Transnational actors and international organisations in global politics. In: Baylis, J et al., 5th ed. Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. New York:Oxford University Press, pp.328-337 Read More